Be very skeptical of any claims such as "Bitcoin mining is unprofitable beyond this threshold" or "AI is killing Bitcoin". Not only is it more nuanced than that, but the research tells us that AI datacenters increasingly need Bitcoin mining (see 7. below) For example 1. In places such as Europe, where electricity prices are high, mining still exists because often miners view heat recycling as the primary revenue, SATS as the byproduct 2. Bitcoin mining companies increasingly buy generation assets, allowing them to mine for zero marginal cost 3. Bitcoin mining companies can use older mining rigs on intermittent power sources, getting a very cheap rate. 4. Stranded energy such as O&G and landfills provides the chance to mine at ~1c/kWh in return for higher upfront CAPEX 5. Demand response, FCAS, RECS, carbon credits all provide ancillary revenue sources that aren't factored into general "mining is unprofitable below level-x" pronouncements 6. Prices can and often do go negative where there are renewable electricity surpluses, despite the general wholesale price of electricity (Again, a suitable source for older mining rigs) 7. Mining can be used alongside AI for strategic advantages including - monetizing energy during AI datacenter construction - using forward-purchased energy that would otherwise be wasted - smoothing demand patterns of AI load and recategorizing AI datacenters as FLC (flexible load consumers) source: web.archive.org/web/20240330…. As FLC, AI datacenters become far more likely to win contracts with grid operators, and help grid operators delay infrastructure investment costs that AI would otherwise necessitate (source: nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/s…) When assessing claims about Bitcoin mining profitability, two good questions to ask are "does this person have domain knowledge at the intersection of AI, Bitcoin mining and energy grids?" and "Does the claim sound hyperbolic or absolutist?"

The end of Bitcoin mining gaslighting in mainstream media Litmaps, a powerful research tracking tool, reveals that patient zero for all junk science on Bitcoin's environmental impact was a single 6 page "commentary" by Alex de Vries. (A commentary in the context of an academic journal means a short opinion piece that does not to go through a full peer-review process and which does not use novel empirical data). The method he used to claim that Bitcoin's environmental damage was a growing concern was his fundamentally flawed "energy use per transactions" method (Bitcoin energy use does not come from its transactions, therefore it can scale transaction volume exponentially without increasing emissions). de Vries' metric was later debunked in no fewer than 4 separate academic journals as part of full length academic papers. *Masanet et al 2019 researchgate.net/publication… *Dittmar et al. 2019 nature.com/articles/s41558-0… *Sedlmeir et al, 2020 link.springer.com/article/10… *Sai and Vraken 2023 sciencedirect.com/science/ar… The entire body of de Vries' work was systematically debunked by Sai and Vranken in late 2023 source: sciencedirect.com/science/ar… Immediately after Sai & Vranken's study, all mainstream media outlets stopped covering de Vries' Bitcoin "research" In fact, 22 mainstream media outlets have now flipped to covering Bitcoin's environmental benefits (source: xitter.cf/DSBatten/status/200709…) which have been well established in 24 peer reviewed full length academic studies. (source: lnkd.in/gdH4wvw7) A further 15 sustainability media outlets are now also covering Bitcoin mining's environmental benefits: source: lnkd.in/gdH4wvw7 But just as years after the myth "all fats cause cholesterol" was debunked, many people are still unaware of the science, the same is true of Bitcoin mining In both cases, the population was misinformed over many years. As a result, many people are still unaware that the contemporary academic literature, case studies and grid operators themselves all overwhelmingly support Bitcoin mining's environmental benefits source: xitter.cf/DSBatten/status/201398… It is only a matter of time before policymakers, regulators, political leaders and investment committees catch up. Once they do we will see mainstream adoption of Bitcoin, and mainstream adoption of Bitcoin mining as part of climate action (aka: what the peer reviewed research tells us it is) source: xitter.cf/compose/articles/edit/… While many media outlets are now objectively commenting on Bitcoin, others (Financial Times, The Economist, Verge, Wired, New Scientist) have simply pivoted to changing the type of Bitcoin misinformation they publish.

Loved putting down this episode with Bram, which highlighted the amazing new adoption research that @river and @bitcoinpolicy just put out and what it means, but also what @dari_org are doing, supported by @hrf, to quantify how many outside the West are benefitting from Bitcoin

* New podcast * @timevalueofbtc and I discussed new research from @dari_org and @simonocollins, supported by @HRF showing >329,000 refugees have traveled across borders carrying Bitcoin. We discuss how the report is helping change the way policymakers & regulators see Bitcoin Link to video in comments

Very grateful to @HRF. It's because of their support that this year I've been able to do more work researching and quantifying some of the humanitarian benefits of Bitcoin. Thanks to them, this year I've been able to - work alongside @dari_org to put together a first ever quantification of the number of refugees helped by Bitcoin (329,000 of the world's most vulnerable). da-ri.org/articles/bring-onl… - Interview John Perkins about how Bitcoin can overcome monetary colonialism. John and I have become good friends, and last time we chatted we talked about the best exchanges to buy bitcoin on! youtube.com/watch?v=gGY0OXzV… - appear on a couple of podcasts talking about how fiat currency is the natural synergistic partner with dictatorship, whereas Bitcoin naturally harmonizes with democracies youtube.com/watch?v=BOAb1XZa… - put together a report on why bitcoin solves problems in authoritarian regimes that stablecoins can't bitcoinmagazine.com/politics… Again, none of these actions would have been possible without @HRF's support. And there's more to come!

Great chart. This tells us why we've never had a study on bitcoin mining that used actual post-2022 data that concluded it was environmentally harmful.